Metadata for Data dIscoverability aNd Study rEplicability in obseRVAtional Studies (MINERVA): Development and Pilot of a Metadata List and Catalogue in Europe.

PURPOSE: Metadata for data dIscoverability aNd study rEplicability in obseRVAtional studies (MINERVA), a European Medicines Agency-funded project (EUPAS39322), defined a set of metadata to describe real-world data sources (RWDSs) and piloted metadata collection in a prototype catalogue to assist investigators from data source discoverability through study conduct. METHODS: A list of metadata was created from a review of existing metadata catalogues and recommendations, structured interviews, a stakeholder survey, and a technical workshop. The prototype was designed to comply with the FAIR principles (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable), using MOLGENIS software. Metadata collection was piloted by 15 data access partners (DAPs) from across Europe. RESULTS: A total of 442 metadata variables were defined in six domains: institutions (organizations connected to a data source); data banks (data collections sustained by an organization); data sources (collections of linkable data banks covering a common underlying population); studies; networks (of institutions); and common data models (CDMs). A total of 26 institutions were recorded in the prototype. Each DAP populated the metadata of one data source and its selected data banks. The number of data banks varied by data source; the most common data banks were hospital administrative records and pharmacy dispensation records (10 data sources each). Quantitative metadata were successfully extracted from three data sources conforming to different CDMs and entered into the prototype. CONCLUSIONS: A metadata list was finalized, a prototype was successfully populated, and a good practice guide was developed. Setting up and maintaining a metadata catalogue on RWDSs will require substantial effort to support discoverability of data sources and reproducibility of studies in Europe.

A collaborative study of the impact of N-nitrosamines presence and ARB recall on ARB utilization - results from IQVIA™ Disease Analyzer Germany.

PURPOSE: Regulators are increasingly concerned with  the impact of recalls on drug adherence. In 2018, N-nitrosamines impurities were detected in valsartan containing medical products. Concerned products were immediately recalled in July 2018 by regulatory agencies internationally. In Germany, recalls were issued for valsartan, losartan and irbesartan from July 2018 to March 2019. This study examined angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) utilization trends and switching patterns in Germany before and after July 2018. METHODS: Patients prescribed ARBs from January 2014 to June 2020 in general practices in Germany were included in a collaborative framework common protocol drug utilization study led by the US Food and Drug Administration. Trends in monthly and quarterly proportions of total ARB prescribing were analysed for individual ARBs using descriptive statistics and interrupted time series analysis. The rate of switching to an alternative ARB was analysed before and after the recalls. RESULTS: The proportion of valsartan prescriptions immediately decreased from 35.9 to 17.8% following the first recalls in July 2018, mirrored by an increased proportion for candesartan. Increased switching from valsartan to candesartan was observed. No increased switching was observed after losartan recalls, whereas for irbesartan, increased switching was observed 6-12 months after the last recall. Increased switching from ARBs to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or ARB treatment discontinuations were not observed. CONCLUSION: This study showed that patients were able to continue ARB treatment despite the July 2018-March 2019 recalls, although many patients needed to switch to an alternative ARB. The duration of the impact of ARB recalls appeared to be limited.

Assessing heterogeneity of electronic health-care databases: A case study of background incidence rates of venous thromboembolism.

PURPOSE: Heterogeneous results from multi-database studies have been observed, for example, in the context of generating background incidence rates (IRs) for adverse events of special interest for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. In this study, we aimed to explore different between-database sources of heterogeneity influencing the estimated background IR of venous thromboembolism (VTE). METHODS: Through forest plots and random-effects models, we performed a qualitative and quantitative assessment of heterogeneity of VTE background IR derived from 11 databases from 6 European countries, using age and gender stratified background IR for the years 2017-2019 estimated in two studies. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of selection criteria on the variability of the reported IR. RESULTS: A total of 54 257 284 subjects were included in this study. Age-gender pooled VTE IR varied from 5 to 421/100 000 person-years and IR increased with increasing age for both genders. Wide confidence intervals (CIs) demonstrated considerable within-data-source heterogeneity. Selecting databases with similar characteristics had only a minor impact on the variability as shown in forest plots and the magnitude of the I2 statistic, which remained large. Solely including databases with primary care and hospital data resulted in a noticeable decrease in heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Large variability in IR between data sources and within age group and gender strata warrants the need for stratification and limits the feasibility of a meaningful pooled estimate. A more detailed knowledge of the data characteristics, operationalisation of case definitions and cohort population might support an informed choice of the adequate databases to calculate reliable estimates.

HARmonized Protocol Template to Enhance Reproducibility of hypothesis evaluating real-world evidence studies on treatment effects: A good practices report of a joint ISPE/ISPOR task force.

PROBLEM: Ambiguity in communication of key study parameters limits the utility of real-world evidence (RWE) studies in healthcare decision-making. Clear communication about data provenance, design, analysis, and implementation is needed. This would facilitate reproducibility, replication in independent data, and assessment of potential sources of bias. WHAT WE DID: The International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) and ISPOR-The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) convened a joint task force, including representation from key international stakeholders, to create a harmonized protocol template for RWE studies that evaluate a treatment effect and are intended to inform decision-making. The template builds on existing efforts to improve transparency and incorporates recent insights regarding the level of detail needed to enable RWE study reproducibility. The overarching principle was to reach for sufficient clarity regarding data, design, analysis, and implementation to achieve 3 main goals. One, to help investigators thoroughly consider, then document their choices and rationale for key study parameters that define the causal question (e.g., target estimand), two, to facilitate decision-making by enabling reviewers to readily assess potential for biases related to these choices, and three, to facilitate reproducibility. STRATEGIES TO DISSEMINATE AND FACILITATE USE: Recognizing that the impact of this harmonized template relies on uptake, we have outlined a plan to introduce and pilot the template with key international stakeholders over the next 2 years. CONCLUSION: The HARmonized Protocol Template to Enhance Reproducibility (HARPER) helps to create a shared understanding of intended scientific decisions through a common text, tabular and visual structure. The template provides a set of core recommendations for clear and reproducible RWE study protocols and is intended to be used as a backbone throughout the research process from developing a valid study protocol, to registration, through implementation and reporting on those implementation decisions.

Ondansetron use in nausea and vomiting during pregnancy: A descriptive analysis of prescription patterns and patient characteristics in UK general practice.

AIMS: The objective of this study was to describe ondansetron drug utilization patterns during pregnancy to treat nausea and vomiting in pregnancy (NVP). Moreover, we aimed to describe the maternal factors associated with NVP and antiemetic use. METHODS: The data consist of pregnancies with a live birth(s) within an IMRD-UK registered GP practice. Descriptive statistics were used to investigate patterns of ondansetron use in pregnancy and to describe maternal characteristics associated with NVP and antiemetic drug utilization. We differentiate first- from second-line use during pregnancy using antiemetic prescription pathways. RESULTS: The dataset included 733 633 recorded complete pregnancies from 2005 to 2019. NVP diagnosis and ondansetron prescription prevalence increased from 2.7% and 0.1% in 2005 to 4.8% and 2.5% in 2019 respectively. Over the period 2015-2019, the most common oral daily dosages were 4 mg/d (8.5%), 8 mg/d (37.1%), 12 mg/d (37.5%) and between 16 and 24 mg/d (16.9%). Prescription of ondansetron was initiated during the first trimester of pregnancy in 40% of the cases and was moderately used as a first-line therapy (2.8%), but preferred choice of second-line therapy. Women with mental health disorders, asthma and/or prescribed folic acid were more likely to experience NVP and use antiemetics in pregnancy than their counterparts. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that ondansetron is increasingly used off-label to treat NVP during pregnancy, also in the first trimester and before other prescription antiemetics have been prescribed. Several maternal comorbidities and folic acid use were more common among women experiencing NVP and using antiemetics, including ondansetron.

HARmonized Protocol Template to Enhance Reproducibility of Hypothesis Evaluating Real-World Evidence Studies on Treatment Effects: A Good Practices Report of a Joint ISPE/ISPOR Task Force.

OBJECTIVES: Ambiguity in communication of key study parameters limits the utility of real-world evidence (RWE) studies in healthcare decision-making. Clear communication about data provenance, design, analysis, and implementation is needed. This would facilitate reproducibility, replication in independent data, and assessment of potential sources of bias. METHODS: The International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) and ISPOR-The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) convened a joint task force, including representation from key international stakeholders, to create a harmonized protocol template for RWE studies that evaluate a treatment effect and are intended to inform decision-making. The template builds on existing efforts to improve transparency and incorporates recent insights regarding the level of detail needed to enable RWE study reproducibility. The over-arching principle was to reach for sufficient clarity regarding data, design, analysis, and implementation to achieve 3 main goals. One, to help investigators thoroughly consider, then document their choices and rationale for key study parameters that define the causal question (e.g., target estimand), two, to facilitate decision-making by enabling reviewers to readily assess potential for biases related to these choices, and three, to facilitate reproducibility. STRATEGIES TO DISSEMINATE AND FACILITATE USE: Recognizing that the impact of this harmonized template relies on uptake, we have outlined a plan to introduce and pilot the template with key international stakeholders over the next 2 years. CONCLUSION: The HARmonized Protocol Template to Enhance Reproducibility (HARPER) helps to create a shared understanding of intended scientific decisions through a common text, tabular and visual structure. The template provides a set of core recommendations for clear and reproducible RWE study protocols and is intended to be used as a backbone throughout the research process from developing a valid study protocol, to registration, through implementation and reporting on those implementation decisions.

What are the patients' and health care professionals' understanding and behaviors towards adverse drug reaction reporting and additional monitoring?

BACKGROUND: The additional monitoring (AM)/black triangle concept is aimed to enhance ADR reporting for certain types of medicinal products for which the safety profile is less well established. PURPOSE: The objective of this survey was to assess (a) attitudes towards ADR reporting and reasons for not reporting an ADR and (b) awareness of AM among HCPs, patients or their careers in EU countries. METHODS: An online questionnaire which was available in all EU languages was completed by 2918 responders coming from all EEA countries. RESULTS: The main factors motivating to report an ADR were severity or novelty of the reaction or novelty of the medicine. The main factors for not reporting an ADR was the fact that the ADR is already known (35%), the ADR was not serious (18%) or reporter was not sure if the ADR was related to the medicine (15%). Half of the respondents indicated that they have seen AM statement before. Thirty percent of the responders had correct understanding of the AM concept while 20 % misunderstood the concept. CONCLUSION: Underreporting occurs but it seems this is because of reporter's prioritisation towards certain type of ADRs. AM aims to increase reporting for certain medicines, however, approximately half of responders have seen the AM symbol before and 20% of all responders (independent of their previous awareness) misunderstood the concept.

Does additional monitoring status increase the reporting of adverse drug reactions? An interrupted time series analysis of EudraVigilance data.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of including a medicine in the list of medicinal products subject to additional monitoring (AM) on the reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in the european economic area (EEA). METHODS: Interrupted time series using the monthly number of EEA ADR reports in EudraVigilance during 12 months before and after the addition to AM list. The main outcome was the change (%) in reporting of ADRs with step change as the a priori impact model. Further time series analysis was performed using Joinpoint Regression. RESULTS: The analysis included 11 active substances. No significant immediate (step change) increase of reporting was identified for any product at time of addition to AM list. We identified a significant gradual increase of ADR reporting after addition to AM list (slope change) for two out of five new products-boceprevir (10% per month, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3%-18%) and denosumab-Xgeva (13% per month, 95% CI 4%-22%). No change was identified for Prolia, another denosumab-containing product not subject to AM. No significant increase was identified for any product included in the AM list due to the requirement to conduct a PASS. Conversely, a gradual decrease in reporting was identified for natalizumab (-5% per month; 95% CI -10% to -1%), rivaroxaban (-5%; -8 to -3%), and varenicline (-16%; -21 to -10%). The results were corroborated by the Joinpoint analyses, which yielded similar results. CONCLUSIONS: We identified limited evidence that reporting of ADRs increased modestly and gradually for some new products and not for products with PASS requirement.

Association between hydrochlorothiazide exposure and different incident skin, lip and oral cavity cancers: A series of population-based nested case-control studies.

AIMS: Hydrochlorothiazide-induced photosensitivity may increase squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and lip cancer risk. The aim was to quantify these risks. METHODS: Nested case-control studies using data from the UK THIN database from 01 January 1999 to 01 May 2016. Adults with incident SCC, BCC, melanoma, lip cancer and oral cancer were matched (on age, sex and calendar year of cohort entry) to controls using incidence density sampling. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) for each outcome were calculated for ever and cumulative hydrochlorothiazide exposure, measuring the impact of additionally adjusting for smoking and body mass index (BMI). Adjusted rate differences were estimated, including the number needed to harm. RESULTS: Cumulative hydrochlorothiazide doses ≥50 000 mg were associated with a significantly increased risk of SCC IRR = 3.05 (1.93-4.81) and BCC IRR = 1.34 (1.06-1.69). Using a 5-year lag-period, hydrochlorothiazide exposure was also associated with a significantly increased risk of lip cancer (IRR 2.85, 95% confidence interval 1.32-6.15). No significantly increased risk of melanoma or oral cavity cancer was observed. Following adjustment for smoking and BMI, which had inverse associations with several skin cancer types, associations for hydrochlorothiazide remained significant. The overall number needed to harm with high-dose cumulative hydrochlorothiazide exposure was: 804 for SCC; 2463 for BCC, and 200 000 for lip cancer but varied by age and sex. CONCLUSION: Hydrochlorothiazide exposure was associated with an increased risk of SCC, BCC and lip cancer that is not explained following adjustment for smoking and BMI. These findings may support clinical and regulatory decision making.

Regulatory and health technology assessment advice on postlicensing and postlaunch evidence generation is a foundation for lifecycle data collection for medicines.

The understanding of the benefit risk profile, and relative effectiveness of a new medicinal product, are initially established in a circumscribed patient population through clinical trials. There may be uncertainties associated with the new medicinal product that cannot be, or do not need to be resolved before launch. Postlicensing or postlaunch evidence generation (PLEG) is a term for evidence generated after the licensure or launch of a medicinal product to address these remaining uncertainties. PLEG is thus part of the continuum of evidence development for a medicinal product, complementing earlier evidence, facilitating further elucidation of a product's benefit/risk profile, value proposition, and/or exploring broader aspects of disease management and provision of healthcare. PLEG plays a role in regulatory decision making, not only in the European Union but also in other jurisdictions including the USA and Japan. PLEG is also relevant for downstream decision-making by health technology assessment bodies and payers. PLEG comprises studies of different designs, based on data collected in observational or experimental settings. Experience to date in the European Union has indicated a need for improvements in PLEG. Improvements in design and research efficiency of PLEG could be addressed through more systematic pursuance of Scientific Advice on PLEG with single or multiple decision makers. To date, limited information has been available on the rationale, process or timing for seeking PLEG advice from regulators or health technology assessment bodies. This article sets out to address these issues and to encourage further uptake of PLEG advice.

Assessing strength of evidence for regulatory decision making in licensing: What proof do we need for observational studies of effectiveness?

Before a medicine can be recommended for a marketing authorization research must be provided to regulators that convincingly supports the benefit-risk of the product in the claimed indication. The established criteria for such research are usually expressed in terms of evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCT). If studies in real-world data (RWD) are to be accepted as all or part of the package of evidence, it is necessary to understand the relationship between information from studies of RWD and that from RCTs. The aim of this review is to consider how the strength of such evidence can be quantified in a manner that relates to the decision-making process, what research is currently available to further this understanding and what additional information will be required.

Considerations for pharmacoepidemiological analyses in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has triggered several hypotheses regarding use of specific medicines and risk of infection as well as prognosis. Under these unique circumstances, rapid answers require quick engagement in data collection and analyses; however, appropriate design and conduct of pharmacoepidemiologic studies are needed to generate valid and reliable evidence. In this paper, endorsed by the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology, we provide methodological considerations for the conduct of pharmacoepidemiological studies in relation to the pandemic across eight domains: (1) timeliness of evidence, including the need to prioritise some questions over others in the acute phase of the pandemic; (2) the need to align observational and interventional research on efficacy; (3) the specific challenges related to "real-time epidemiology" during an ongoing pandemic; (4) what design to use to answer a specific question; (5) considerations on the definition of exposures; (6) what covariates to collect; (7) considerations on the definition of outcomes; and (8) the need for transparent reporting.

Effect of withdrawal of fusafungine from the market on prescribing of antibiotics and other alternative treatments in Germany: a pharmacovigilance impact study.

PURPOSE: Knowledge on unintended consequences of product withdrawals is limited. Fusafungine, indicated for treatment of upper respiratory airways disease (URAD), was withdrawn in the EU on May 28, 2016. Given concerns about possible substitution with antibiotics, this study aimed to assess the impact of the withdrawal of fusafungine on prescribing of antibiotics and other treatments. METHODS: The study was conducted using data from general practitioner (GP) and ear, nose and throat (ENT) practices in IMS® Disease Analyzer Germany. The quarterly prevalence of fusafungine prescribing was analysed for consultations involving the most common URAD between May 29, 2013 and May 28, 2017 in regular fusafungine-prescribing practices. Trends in the quarterly prevalence of antibiotics (AB), other nasal or throat preparations (N&T) and tyrothricin were analyzed. Practices with no fusafungine prescribing during the study served as controls. Changes in prescribing trend were evaluated using interrupted time series regression analysis. RESULTS: In fusafungine-prescribing practices, withdrawal of fusafungine was associated with an immediate increase in prescribing of other N&Ts among patients consulting for URAD (+ 6.4%, 95% CI 2.3-10.5% in GP practices and + 9.0%, 95% CI 5.5-12.5% in ENT practices). There was no increase in antibiotic prescribing. In ENT practices; a small transient increase in tyrothricin prescribing occurred. No changes were seen in non-fusafungine-prescribing practices. CONCLUSIONS: Withdrawal of fusafungine was not associated with increased prescribing of antibiotics but was associated with increased prescribing of other N&Ts. The unintended impact of substitution to other treatments should be considered routinely when products are withdrawn or restricted in other ways.

Prescribing patterns of tramadol in adults in IMS® primary care databases in France and Germany between 1 January 2006 and 30 June 2016.

PURPOSE: There is increasing concern with regard to fatal intoxications with prescription opioids and tramadol poisonings. This study aimed to characterise prescribing patterns for tramadol in primary care in France and Germany and identify long-term treatment and potential risk factors for such treatment. METHODS: Adult patients-prescribed tramadol between January 2006 and June 2016 in GP practices in IMS® Disease Analyzer databases in France and Germany were identified. Six-monthly prevalence and mean doses and durations were calculated by gender, age group and type of tramadol product. The proportion of incident use that resulted in treatment ≥ 366 days was calculated. The odds for long-term treatment was analysed in relation to gender, age group, type of tramadol product, start dose, indication and a diagnosis of abuse or misuse. RESULTS: Overall prescribing of tramadol decreased in Germany and increased, then plateaued in France. Prescribing was higher in females. Predominantly prescribed products were tramadol in combination with paracetamol (COMB) in France and slow release formulations of tramadol (SR-TRAM) in Germany. SR-TRAM had the highest mean doses and durations, followed by immediate release formulations of tramadol (IR-TRAM) and COMB. Around 1.5% of incident tramadol use in France and 8.2% in Germany resulted in long-term treatment. Long-term treatment was associated with increasing age, SR-TRAM and a diagnosis of abuse or misuse. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of long-term treatment appeared to increase with increasing age. Potential risk factors for long-term treatment included initiating treatment with SR-TRAM and a diagnosis of abuse or misuse.

The ENCePP Code of Conduct: A best practise for scientific independence and transparency in noninterventional postauthorisation studies.

PURPOSE: The ENCePP Code of Conduct provides a framework for scientifically independent and transparent pharmacoepidemiological research. Despite becoming a landmark reference, practical implementation of key provisions was still limited. The fourth revision defines scientific independence and clarifies uncertainties on the applicability to postauthorisation safety studies requested by regulators. To separate the influence of the funder from the investigator's scientific responsibility, the Code now requires that the lead investigator is not employed by the funding institution. METHOD: To assess how the revised Code fits the ecosystem of noninterventional pharmacoepidemiology research in Europe, we first mapped key recommendations of the revised Code against ISPE Good Pharmacoepidemiology Practices and the ADVANCE Code of Conduct. We surveyed stakeholders to understand perceptions on its value and practical applicability. Representatives from the different stakeholders' groups described their experience and expectations. RESULTS: Unmet needs in pharmacoepidemiological research are fulfilled by providing unique guidance on roles and responsibilities to support scientific independence. The principles of scientific independence and transparency are well understood and reinforce trust in study results; however, around 70% of survey respondents still found some provisions difficult to apply. Representatives from stakeholders' groups found the new version promising, although limitations still exist. CONCLUSION: By clarifying definitions and roles, the latest revision of the Code sets a new standard in the relationship between investigators and funders to support scientific independence of pharmacoepidemiological research. Disseminating and training on the provisions of the Code would help stakeholders to better understand its advantages and promote its adoption in noninterventional research.

A European multicentre drug utilisation study of the impact of regulatory measures on prescribing of codeine for pain in children.

PURPOSE: In June 2013, following recommendations from the World Health Organization (WHO) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency agreed updates to the codeine product information regarding use for pain in children younger than 12 years and children undergoing tonsillectomy or adenoidectomy (TA) for obstructive sleep apnoea. This study was conducted to (a) assess effectiveness of these measures on codeine prescribing in the "real-world" setting and (b) test feasibility of a study using a common protocol by regulators with access to databases. METHODS: The study was performed using BIFAP (Spain), CPRD (UK), and IMS® Disease Analyzer (France and Germany) databases. Prescribers included general practitioners (GPs) (France and UK), GPs and paediatricians together (Spain), and GPs, paediatricians, and ear, nose, and throat (ENT) specialists separately (Germany). Between January 2010 and June 2015, prevalence of codeine prescribing was obtained every 6 months, and a time series analysis (joinpoint) was performed. Codeine prescribing within ±30 days of TA was also identified. Furthermore, doses, durations, and prior prescribing of other analgesics were investigated. RESULTS: Over the 5-year period, codeine prescribing decreased in children younger than 12 years (by 84% in France and Spain, 44% in GP practices in Germany, and 33% in the United Kingdom). The temporal pattern was compatible with the regulatory intervention in France and the United Kingdom, whereas a decrease throughout the study period was seen in Germany and Spain. Decreased prescribing associated with TA was suggested in ENT practices in Germany. CONCLUSIONS: Codeine prescribing for children decreased in line with introduced regulatory measures. Multidatabase studies assessing impact of measures by EU regulators are feasible.

Antidepressant use during pregnancy and risk of autism spectrum disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: systematic review of observational studies and methodological considerations.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressant exposure during pregnancy has been associated with an increased risk of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in several observational studies. We performed a systematic review of these studies to highlight the effect that important methodological limitations have on such analyses and to consider approaches to the conduct, reporting and interpretation of future studies. METHODS: A review of MEDLINE and EMBASE identified case-control, cohort and sibling studies assessing the risk of ASD and ADHD with antidepressant use during pregnancy. Approaches to confounding adjustment were described. Crude and adjusted effect estimates for comparisons between antidepressant exposure during pregnancy vs. all unexposed women were first meta-analysed using a generic inverse variance method of analysis, followed by effect estimates for alternative pre-selected comparison groups. RESULTS: A total of 15 studies measuring ASD as an outcome (involving 3,585,686 children and 40,585 cases) and seven studies measuring ADHD as an outcome (involving 2,765,723 patients and 52,313 cases) were identified. Variation in confounding adjustment existed between studies. Updated effect estimates for the association between maternal antidepressant exposure during pregnancy vs. all unexposed women remained statistically significant for ASD (adjusted random-effects risk ratio [RaRR] 1.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.31-1.78). Similar significant associations were observed using pre-pregnancy maternal antidepressant exposure (RaRR 1.48, 95% CI 1.29-1.71) and paternal antidepressant exposure during pregnancy (1.29, 95% CI 1.08-1.53), but analyses restricted to using women with a history of affective disorder (1.18, 95% CI 0.91-1.52) and sibling studies (0.96, 95% CI 0.65-1.42) were not statistically significant. Corresponding associations for risk of ADHD with exposure were: RaRR 1.38, 95% CI 1.13-1.69 (during pregnancy), RaRR 1.38, 95% CI 1.14-1.69 (during pre-pregnancy), RaRR 1.71, 95% CI 1.31-2.23 (paternal exposure), RaRR 0.98, 95% CI 0.77-1.24 (women with a history of affective disorder) and RaRR 0.88, 95% CI 0.70-1.11 (sibling studies). CONCLUSIONS: Existing observational studies measuring the risk of ASD and ADHD with antidepressant exposure are heterogeneous in their design. Classical comparisons between exposed and unexposed women during pregnancy are at high risk of residual confounding. Alternative comparisons and sibling designs may aid the interpretation of causality and their utility requires further evaluation, including understanding potential limitations of undertaking meta-analyses with such data.

Measuring the impact of medicines regulatory interventions - Systematic review and methodological considerations.

AIMS: Evaluating the public health impact of regulatory interventions is important but there is currently no common methodological approach to guide this evaluation. This systematic review provides a descriptive overview of the analytical methods for impact research. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for articles with an empirical analysis evaluating the impact of European Union or non-European Union regulatory actions to safeguard public health published until March 2017. References from systematic reviews and articles from other known sources were added. Regulatory interventions, data sources, outcomes of interest, methodology and key findings were extracted. RESULTS: From 1246 screened articles, 229 were eligible for full-text review and 153 articles in English language were included in the descriptive analysis. Over a third of articles studied analgesics and antidepressants. Interventions most frequently evaluated are regulatory safety communications (28.8%), black box warnings (23.5%) and direct healthcare professional communications (10.5%); 55% of studies measured changes in drug utilization patterns, 27% evaluated health outcomes, and 18% targeted knowledge, behaviour or changes in clinical practice. Unintended consequences like switching therapies or spill-over effects were rarely evaluated. Two-thirds used before-after time series and 15.7% before-after cross-sectional study designs. Various analytical approaches were applied including interrupted time series regression (31.4%), simple descriptive analysis (28.8%) and descriptive analysis with significance tests (23.5%). CONCLUSION: Whilst impact evaluation of pharmacovigilance and product-specific regulatory interventions is increasing, the marked heterogeneity in study conduct and reporting highlights the need for scientific guidance to ensure robust methodologies are applied and systematic dissemination of results occurs.

Imposed registries within the European postmarketing surveillance system: Extended analysis and lessons learned for regulators.

PURPOSE: Building on previous research, we examined whether delayed study start and low patient accrual rates found in 31 postauthorization registry-based studies requested by European Medicines Agency (EMA) are maintained after 2 additional years of follow-up. METHOD: The registries identified in the previous EMA study and the same methodology were used. The follow-up was extended from June 2015 to November 2017. The information available for the following variables was updated: marketing authorization status, study and registry status, study end date, planned duration, number of patients planned to be enrolled, and actual patients enrolled. Data were collected from several nonpublic in-house sources such as the study protocols, interim and final study reports, risk management plans, and periodic safety update reports. RESULTS: As of November 2017, 10 (32.2%) studies were finalized (vs. 9.7% as of June 2015), 14 (45.2%) were still ongoing (vs. 64.5%). Four of the ongoing studies had patients' accrual lower than 50%. Six of the finalized studies had a delayed completion, with a median delay of 3 years. As of November 2017, the median patients' accrual percentages were 24% for ongoing studies (vs. 8.5%) and 101% for finalized studies (vs. 24%). CONCLUSION: Overall, the rate of recruitment and timely finalization were improved after 2 years of additional follow-up but show that further work is needed to facilitate use of registry data for regulatory purposes, a work that has started via the EMA registry initiative.